Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-07 16:33:30

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:45:27 +0200, Stewart, Robert  
<Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Boris Schaeling wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:07:26 +0200, Stewart, Robert
>> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Shall we use a bool to indicate whether an input or output
>> >> stream is configured or something else like an enumeration? I
>> >> think it all depends on how many developers want to define
>> >> new stream behaviors and if it's worth to make the signature
>> >> a bit more self-explanatory?
>> >
>> > bool is never a good idea for such arguments, regardless of the
>> > possibility of extending the set.
>>
>> It smells a bit like over-engineering to me but then I don't
>> really mind to change it. More opinions?
>
> As I noted in the snipped portion of my reply, why would anyone  
> associate true (or false) with input and the other with output?  bools  
> are great when a value or argument is, itself, a Boolean quantity, but  
> when they are used to represent non-Boolean quantities, there is no  
> association possible beyond rote memorization.
>
> Besides, removing doubt and adding clarity is hardly over-engineering.

We are focusing here on a bool variable 99% of library users will never  
see. And I don't think the other 1% will need more than 5 seconds to find  
out what it does. But as I said I don't mind to change it. And if this is  
the only issue the library seems to be in a pretty good shape now. ;)

I'll update the code and documentation in the coming days. As discussions  
seem to have calmed down a bit I'll ask then for a review. Thanks for  
everyone's feedback so far!

Boris